Talk:Kundō Koyama

Template for non-Latin characters
Any writing guide will tell you that it's important to start with a clean, easily understood sentence. As far as most of our readers are concerned, Japanese characters are just clutter. Moving non-Latin characters to a language box is a popular solution to this problem, used on thousands of articles. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And also against the use of non-roman scripts implicitly recommended by MOS:FORLANG (see the Cyrillic in that lead sentence?) and Manual of Style/Japan-related articles (check out pretty much every example of a lead sentence), as well as contrary to several FAs on Japanese topics. There's a clear consensus that the language box is not necessary, even if some people prefer to use it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand where Clodhopper's coming from—it's the reason I tend to relegate Japanese script to footnotes if I include it at all. The opening sentence is a special case, though, and presenting the original script for a name is a well-established standard on Wikipedia—and in Koyama's case, a mere four characters is easily tolerable clutter.  The language box isn't merely moving hte clutter out of the lead, though—it's melodramatically drawing attention to a trivial aspect of the bio.  The language box would make sense if the name were the subject of the article, or if the name had complications best dealt with in a box.  With Koyama, that's clearly not the case.  If I saw such a gratuitous infobox on a biography at FAC I wouldn't hesitate to oppose it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevant guidance is WP:OPENPARAGRAPHow . Note that there is no Greek in the Cleopatra example. In addition, MOS:KO recommends using a template as opposed to a parenthetical. Editors who don't know how to use a template will put the native script in the lede. That doesn't make it the better method. Some academic journals may include non-Latin parentheticals. But any publication aimed at a wider audience, including other encyclopedias, leaves them out. This is somebody in entertainment. I doubt if he is presented in this style in any RS. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First, Clodhopper, you might want to take a look at the Cleopatra article. Second, WP:KO may or may not have good reasons for using the box—they don't apply to Japanese articles, however.  For instance, while there appear to be competing romanization systems for Korean, the consensus at en.wp is to use only modified Hepburn.  "Editors who don't know how to use a template will put the native script in the lede.": not only do I know how to use a template, but I've created quite a few myself, and tend strongly to favour using infoboxes.  This box, however, is entirely gratuitous and draws unnecessary attention to the orthography of the name when there's nothing special about it at all.  Take a look through WP:FA and see just how well-established the standard is to include the original script in the opening line. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an addendum: the Greek has been stable in Cleopatra's article for at least five years. As for the correct MOS: WP:LEAD is more relevant, and more detailed, in regards to leads and opening sentences than Manual of Style/Biographies, and MOS:KO has absolutely nothing to do with a Japanese subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At least the box about how the article contains Japanese text is now basking in well-deserved prominence. We wouldn't want anyone to be confused on that point. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize what the purpose of that box is, don't you? If a user doesn't have Japanese fonts installed, all the Japanese will be replaced with little boxes, as the box says: "Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of kanji and kana."  The reader needs to be informed about why that's happening, so they know that nothing's broken.  Are you suggesting we bury such a message where the reader is unlikely to find it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)